However, the fact is that the numbers won’t ever add up because just like this young man spoke up and said, there aren’t enough millionaires and billionaires in America that we can tax in order for all of us to get something for free.
This is because you are incapable of changing the perspective of your thinking to one that actually applies to the question. It’s never about the money. Don’t beat yourself up too badly though, as most people think in terms of their own experience when it comes to money, which means they project their own status as “users” of the currency onto the federal government, along with all of the limitations that involves, which is actually the Constitutionally authorized “issuer” of the currency without revenue restraint.
Much of this confusion comes from the role taxes play in our society and government at its various levels. Any entity that isn’t the federal government, states, cities, business, individuals, must “get” money prior to spending, just as we must. Thus, they depend upon the federal government to create enough currency to allow for productive commerce and to pay the tax levies the currency-issuing government applies to them by law to drive the use of its currency in the economy. We never “fund” our federal government, as it funds us, never needing its own currency back except to control inflation. It does, however, need us to need its currency, which is the primary function of taxation at the federal level, not actually funding anything. The currency must exist in the economy before it is available to collect as taxes or borrow, so neither can be funding mechanisms even if we really want them to be.
Let’s just jump on the Progressive bandwagon and begin eliminating federal government agencies we see as unnecessary.
The temptation to answer the eternal “How will you pay for it?” question by rattling off a list of agencies and functions we don’t like or agree with is too strong to resist, especially for politicians who make their living pandering. The truth, at least at the federal level, is that spending on Homeland Security has no bearing whatsoever on spending for higher education, as they would be unlikely to have many required resources in common. At the federal level, we can always “afford” anything that is for sale and priced in dollars Congress can create without restriction. Affordability in terms of dollars only becomes an issue when real resources become scarce, or distribution bottlenecks occur.
I know putting logic and simple math to the challenge isn’t the answer but I do know one thing. Maybe before we go pursuing free college education, we should examine just why a college education has become so expensive in the first place.
If you know those aren’t the answers you are looking for perhaps ramping down the cocksure cynicism and thinly veiled anger over a subject you admit to not being qualified in would be wise. Trying to make federal finance conform to your household budget rules to make you “comfortable” with the process is only destroying our nation while making the worst people in the world filthy rich. Like most conservatives, you are addicted to your own anger and would rather be angry than see your own nation prosper. Your writing is dripping in it. It is also literally killing your fellow Americans.
